Din setting and age question

wrote:

You wouldn't think the settings for age 50 should be the same as age
70.

No, the settings for age 30 should be the same as age 70.

If you're continuously active with constant bone stress, your bone loss
is less to nill.

"VtSkier" wrote in message
...
lal_truckee wrote:
wrote:


You wouldn't think the settings for age 50 should be the same as age
70.


No, the settings for age 30 should be the same as age 70.

If you're continuously active with constant bone stress, your bone loss
is less to nill.

I heard that someplace and sort of live by that.
Constant activity. If you don't use it, you'll
lose it.

VtSkier

I'm not convinced that the DIN settings are as precise as the charts
suggest. The way you ski or the way you feel on any particular day could
result in a recommended change of 2. I am even less convinced that DIN
settings are the same across manufacturers. I've just replaced Atomic
bindings on my son's skis with a spare set of Salomons because the "4"
setting on the Atomics (which have been checked and are undamaged) felt way
higher than the 4 on the Salomons which felt right to me (and the same as
the Looks on another pair) .... and before anyone mentions using torque
devices, I have never seen these used anywhere in European ski shops. Most
times they ask your weight, look at you, fiddle with a screwdriver, put the
boot in, wrench it out and say "OK".

Joe

Joe Roach wrote:
"VtSkier" wrote in message
...

lal_truckee wrote:

wrote:


You wouldn't think the settings for age 50 should be the same as age
70.


No, the settings for age 30 should be the same as age 70.

If you're continuously active with constant bone stress, your bone loss
is less to nill.

I heard that someplace and sort of live by that.
Constant activity. If you don't use it, you'll
lose it.

VtSkier


I'm not convinced that the DIN settings are as precise as the charts
suggest. The way you ski or the way you feel on any particular day could
result in a recommended change of 2. I am even less convinced that DIN
settings are the same across manufacturers. I've just replaced Atomic
bindings on my son's skis with a spare set of Salomons because the "4"
setting on the Atomics (which have been checked and are undamaged) felt way
higher than the 4 on the Salomons which felt right to me (and the same as
the Looks on another pair) .... and before anyone mentions using torque
devices, I have never seen these used anywhere in European ski shops. Most
times they ask your weight, look at you, fiddle with a screwdriver, put the
boot in, wrench it out and say "OK".

The "DIN" setting directly corresponds to a release torque - part of the
DIN definition is different release torques at heel and toe; (I imagine
the heel/toe DIN settings were normalized so as not to confuse customers
resulting in confusion such as herein.) All binding manufacturers use
the exact same DIN settings - "DIN" is an international industrial
standard. How precise the DIN setting is, is also part of the standard
(see later.) How you ski doesn't change the strength of tendon and bone
and nominally shouldn't change your DIN requirements. I say nominally
because in particular activities, i.e. serious racing and "if you fall
you die" genuine extreme skiing may sacrifice binding release for
alternative concerns, even to the point of locking the binding for no
release at all (replacing springs with metal blocks.)

When you rent, the bindings have been tested so that the shop knows the
DIN readings on the bindings correspond appropriately to release torque.
A proper rental shop will periodically recheck, and discard bindings
that fall out of compliance. This is why rental shops can set to the
binding DIN reading and be confident the release is correct.

If you are buying and they set to binding DIN without release check they
are cheating you.

Re precision, among the DIN requirements if you dig deeply enough, is
one that states a binding's DIN reading must, within narrow tolerance,
correspond to the DIN release torque as defined. I've had perfectly good
bindings (Solly 957s) that drifted enough to fail just this part of the
test - my shop wouldn't "set them" officially. However after discussion
with my tech we determined appropriate "settings" for my desired torque
releases and I used those settings with no problems (but rationally I
could no longer call it a "DIN" setting since "DIN" is an international
standard.)

I'm not convinced that the DIN settings are as precise as the charts
suggest. The way you ski or the way you feel on any particular day could
result in a recommended change of 2. I am even less convinced that DIN
settings are the same across manufacturers. I've just replaced Atomic
bindings on my son's skis with a spare set of Salomons because the "4"
setting on the Atomics (which have been checked and are undamaged) felt
way higher than the 4 on the Salomons which felt right to me (and the
same as the Looks on another pair) .... and before anyone mentions using
torque devices, I have never seen these used anywhere in European ski
shops. Most times they ask your weight, look at you, fiddle with a
screwdriver, put the boot in, wrench it out and say "OK".

The "DIN" setting directly corresponds to a release torque - part of the
DIN definition is different release torques at heel and toe; (I imagine
the heel/toe DIN settings were normalized so as not to confuse customers
resulting in confusion such as herein.) All binding manufacturers use the
exact same DIN settings - "DIN" is an international industrial standard.
How precise the DIN setting is, is also part of the standard (see later.)
How you ski doesn't change the strength of tendon and bone and nominally
shouldn't change your DIN requirements. I say nominally because in
particular activities, i.e. serious racing and "if you fall you die"
genuine extreme skiing may sacrifice binding release for alternative
concerns, even to the point of locking the binding for no release at all
(replacing springs with metal blocks.)

When you rent, the bindings have been tested so that the shop knows the
DIN readings on the bindings correspond appropriately to release torque. A
proper rental shop will periodically recheck, and discard bindings that
fall out of compliance. This is why rental shops can set to the binding
DIN reading and be confident the release is correct.

If you are buying and they set to binding DIN without release check they
are cheating you.

Re precision, among the DIN requirements if you dig deeply enough, is one
that states a binding's DIN reading must, within narrow tolerance,
correspond to the DIN release torque as defined. I've had perfectly good
bindings (Solly 957s) that drifted enough to fail just this part of the
test - my shop wouldn't "set them" officially. However after discussion
with my tech we determined appropriate "settings" for my desired torque
releases and I used those settings with no problems (but rationally I
could no longer call it a "DIN" setting since "DIN" is an international
standard.)

There is theory and there is practice. Many of the DIN charts recommend
lower DIN settings for cautious skiers and higher settings for aggressive
skiers. The key point may be your "A proper rental shop will periodically
recheck" bit., The "they ask your weight, look at you, fiddle with a
screwdriver, put the boot in, wrench it out and say OK" experience has
happened to me/my family each of the three times we've bought boots (in
France/Austria) which were tested in our existing skis i.e on "unknown"
bindings.

Joe

Joe Roach wrote:

There is theory and there is practice. Many of the DIN charts recommend
lower DIN settings for cautious skiers and higher settings for aggressive
skiers. The key point may be your "A proper rental shop will periodically
recheck" bit., The "they ask your weight, look at you, fiddle with a
screwdriver, put the boot in, wrench it out and say OK" experience has
happened to me/my family each of the three times we've bought boots (in
France/Austria) which were tested in our existing skis i.e on "unknown"
bindings.

Ah! They were your bindings on your skis? And you purchased boots to fit
your feet, which probably meant the boots were approximately the same
sole length. In which case there's no change required or recommended for
your bindings - they should be left exactly as you previously had them
set. Good show. Even if the boot sole is different length, within a
range the binding setting should be left as previously set.

BTW, that's not "Many of the DIN charts recommend lower DIN settings for
cautious skiers and higher settings for aggressive skiers," that's ALL
of the DIN charts... it's an industrial standard. Manufacturers don't
get to play around with the charts.

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Joe Roach wrote:

There is theory and there is practice. Many of the DIN charts recommend
lower DIN settings for cautious skiers and higher settings for aggressive
skiers. The key point may be your "A proper rental shop will
periodically recheck" bit., The "they ask your weight, look at you,
fiddle with a screwdriver, put the boot in, wrench it out and say OK"
experience has happened to me/my family each of the three times we've
bought boots (in France/Austria) which were tested in our existing skis
i.e on "unknown" bindings.

Ah! They were your bindings on your skis? And you purchased boots to fit
your feet, which probably meant the boots were approximately the same sole
length. In which case there's no change required or recommended for your
bindings - they should be left exactly as you previously had them set.
Good show. Even if the boot sole is different length, within a range the
binding setting should be left as previously set.

BTW, that's not "Many of the DIN charts recommend lower DIN settings for
cautious skiers and higher settings for aggressive skiers," that's ALL of
the DIN charts... it's an industrial standard. Manufacturers don't get to
play around with the charts.

We could be in danger of having a heated agreement on some of this.
Defining a standard is one thing; implementing it is another. Depending on
how I feel (cautious/aggressive) and my questionable judgment, my
recommended DIN setting of 5.25 could move to anywhere between 4.5 and 6.25.
What is the DIN standard definition of cautious/aggressive? This subjective
"measure" means that in the real world there is an inherent lack of
precision in determining the "correct" DIN setting for an individual. The
original question was about reducing it by one level (say a move in the DIN
setting of around 1) when there is already a tolerance of +/-1 based on an
imprecise measure built into the standard.

Joe

Joe Roach wrote:
"VtSkier" wrote in message
...

lal_truckee wrote:

wrote:


You wouldn't think the settings for age 50 should be the same as age
70.


No, the settings for age 30 should be the same as age 70.

If you're continuously active with constant bone stress, your bone loss
is less to nill.

I heard that someplace and sort of live by that.
Constant activity. If you don't use it, you'll
lose it.

VtSkier


I'm not convinced that the DIN settings are as precise as the charts
suggest. The way you ski or the way you feel on any particular day could
result in a recommended change of 2. I am even less convinced that DIN
settings are the same across manufacturers. I've just replaced Atomic
bindings on my son's skis with a spare set of Salomons because the "4"
setting on the Atomics (which have been checked and are undamaged) felt way
higher than the 4 on the Salomons which felt right to me (and the same as
the Looks on another pair) .... and before anyone mentions using torque
devices, I have never seen these used anywhere in European ski shops. Most
times they ask your weight, look at you, fiddle with a screwdriver, put the
boot in, wrench it out and say "OK".

Joe


Ah, yup. Got my verification today. Came down DevilsFiddle today
and on the runout caught a tip on a waterbar. Snapped the heel
of one ski, spun me around so that I twisted out of the other
ski. Rolled once, stood up, went back and got the skis, put them
on and went back to the lift.

My DIN 8 setting was perfect for my ht/wt/boot sole.

VtSkier

lal_truckee wrote:
Joe Roach wrote:

I'm not convinced that the DIN settings are as precise as the charts
suggest...


The "DIN" setting directly corresponds to a release torque - part of the
DIN definition is different release torques at heel and toe; (I imagine
the heel/toe DIN settings were normalized so as not to confuse customers
resulting in confusion such as herein.) All binding manufacturers use
the exact same DIN settings - "DIN" is an international industrial
standard. How precise the DIN setting is, is also part of the standard
(see later.)

As any scientist knows, a spec without a precision (or tolerance, to
ues the vernacular) is meaningless.

DIN standard is that the measured torque be within +- 10% of the
theoretical setting. That's the precision. It's part of the standard.

(Note, however, that low release settings are stated in absolute
torque instead of a percentage - if your calculated toe release torque
is below 50 Newton-Meters, the standard says the measured value must
be within +- 5 Newton-Meters; if your calculated heel release torque
is below 200 Newton-Meters, the standard says the measured value must
be within +- 20 Newton-Meters. Again this is part of the standard.)

A good shop will adjust the bindings so that the *measured* torque
matches the theoretical calculated value. The DIN number (6, 8,
whatever) is not really all that important, and can be off by as much
as two points. It's the measured torque that's important.

--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

VtSkier wrote:

Ah, yup. Got my verification today. Came down DevilsFiddle today
and on the runout caught a tip on a waterbar. Snapped the heel
of one ski, spun me around so that I twisted out of the other
ski. Rolled once, stood up, went back and got the skis, put them
on and went back to the lift.

My DIN 8 setting was perfect for my ht/wt/boot sole.

Yunno, that's what scares me. I just don't test my bindings under
real world conditions often enough. In fact, my last pair of bindings
(Look P10) came and went without ever being "battle tested" - they
could've been super glued in for all I know.

--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

Walt wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:

Joe Roach wrote:


I'm not convinced that the DIN settings are as precise as the charts
suggest...



The "DIN" setting directly corresponds to a release torque - part of
the DIN definition is different release torques at heel and toe; (I
imagine the heel/toe DIN settings were normalized so as not to confuse
customers resulting in confusion such as herein.) All binding
manufacturers use the exact same DIN settings - "DIN" is an
international industrial standard. How precise the DIN setting is, is
also part of the standard (see later.)


As any scientist knows, a spec without a precision (or tolerance, to ues
the vernacular) is meaningless.

DIN standard is that the measured torque be within +- 10% of the
theoretical setting. That's the precision. It's part of the standard.

(Note, however, that low release settings are stated in absolute torque
instead of a percentage - if your calculated toe release torque is below
50 Newton-Meters, the standard says the measured value must be within +-
5 Newton-Meters; if your calculated heel release torque is below 200
Newton-Meters, the standard says the measured value must be within +- 20
Newton-Meters. Again this is part of the standard.)

A good shop will adjust the bindings so that the *measured* torque
matches the theoretical calculated value. The DIN number (6, 8,
whatever) is not really all that important, and can be off by as much as
two points. It's the measured torque that's important.

Walt, this is not even close to correct in this
litigious world.

A "good" shop, one that follows *all* of the recommendations of
the binding manufacturers will "FAIL" the binding if the
torque reading on the testing equipment does not come within
the range specified for the correct DIN setting for your height/
weight/boot sole length.

While failing the boot/binding interface, the shop may set the
binding so that the torque value falls within the correct range
for the *skier*. He still fails the binding and informs the
customer of that fact.

A GOOD shop will also try to diagnose the reason the setting
does not fall within the correct torque range. It may be that the
binding is just too old. It may have broken parts. I've actually
broken binding while testing them because of plastic fatigue (I
actually got good at predicting what binding might break and told
the customer up front). It might be that the boot sole is worn
and not allowing correct release in all directions. It could
be as simple as a broken, worn or lost AFD (anti-friction device)
which, in some form, is integral to all binding designs.

From this diagnosis, the tech should make recommendations to the
customer on what he thinks the customer should do. Now "failing"
a binding does not mean that the tech has "condemned" the binding,
and will not give it back to the customer. It means that the
binding is not up to specification, the customer is warned of
this and can do what he/she wants and the shop is off the hook
for its binding indemnification. Note here that shops often
will not test bindings which they don't sell.

The DIN number IS important in that it shows that the boot/
binding interface is working correctly. If you need to set the
binding at a different DIN just to make the torque numbers
come out right, something isn't working right and you SHOULD
fail the binding.

VtSkier(old shop rodent)